Debate Now Is Libertarianism UnAmerican?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It was never the intent of social programs or public assistance to 'end' poverty, hunger, or homelessness.

The purpose of social programs is to act as a counter-measure to the free market system and the inevitable, static poverty that is its byproduct.

This is not to say capitalism is 'bad,' quite the opposite – it's the most efficient economic system ever developed, but it's imperfect, and the byproduct of poverty is a manifestation of its imperfection, where it's perfectly appropriate for government, representing society as whole, to seek to mitigate the adverse effects of the free market.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I do not see libertarians advocating a complete lack of government.

What they are advocating for is a 100% removal of all social services.

As provided by the government.

It does not mean they don't believe in helping each other out.

And so it gets strange.......

Why would anyone who wants to use the government to help others......feel the need to compell others to follow their path ?

If I needed help, I'd only want it from those who want to give it.

I'd starve before taking help from the government knowing full good and well some of that money came from people who would just as soon not provided it.

The usual progression in this argument is the road/school/police/fire dept.

I've never known libertarians who were against local government supplying those things.

So as a Libertarian you want to see an impoverished America on a par with a 3rd world nation where the less fortunate have no social welfare except what pittance comes via inadequate donations.

Thanks for being honest enough to admit that.

With hyperbole like this it's clear it's you who has no interest in a real discussion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

KK, the hyperbole has always been on the side of he libertarians.

Come up with a program that non-libertarians can look at and say 'maybe.'

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

KK, the hyperbole has always been on the side of he libertarians.

Come up with a program that non-libertarians can look at and say 'maybe.'

Pointing out that programs are unconstitutional, not worth the price, don't work, enrich cronies, etc... Is not the same as saying, "You oppose this program? Why do you want people dying in the streets?"

 

[Derideo_Te]

I do not see libertarians advocating a complete lack of government.

What they are advocating for is a 100% removal of all social services.

As provided by the government.

It does not mean they don't believe in helping each other out.

And so it gets strange.......

Why would anyone who wants to use the government to help others......feel the need to compell others to follow their path ?

If I needed help, I'd only want it from those who want to give it.

I'd starve before taking help from the government knowing full good and well some of that money came from people who would just as soon not provided it.

The usual progression in this argument is the road/school/police/fire dept.

I've never known libertarians who were against local government supplying those things.

So as a Libertarian you want to see an impoverished America on a par with a 3rd world nation where the less fortunate have no social welfare except what pittance comes via inadequate donations.

Thanks for being honest enough to admit that.

With hyperbole like this it's clear it's you who has no interest in a real discussion.

If you seriously wish to meaningfully participate in this structured discussion then I recommend that you provide a substantive rebuttal instead of just puerile kibitzing from the sidelines.

On the other hand if you persist with your current behavior you will be ignored.

Your choice.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I do not see libertarians advocating a complete lack of government.

What they are advocating for is a 100% removal of all social services.

As provided by the government.

It does not mean they don't believe in helping each other out.

And so it gets strange.......

Why would anyone who wants to use the government to help others......feel the need to compell others to follow their path ?

If I needed help, I'd only want it from those who want to give it.

I'd starve before taking help from the government knowing full good and well some of that money came from people who would just as soon not provided it.

The usual progression in this argument is the road/school/police/fire dept.

I've never known libertarians who were against local government supplying those things.

So as a Libertarian you want to see an impoverished America on a par with a 3rd world nation where the less fortunate have no social welfare except what pittance comes via inadequate donations.

Thanks for being honest enough to admit that.

With hyperbole like this it's clear it's you who has no interest in a real discussion.

If you seriously wish to meaningfully participate in this structured discussion then I recommend that you provide a substantive rebuttal instead of just puerile kibitzing from the sidelines.

On the other hand if you persist with your current behavior you will be ignored.

Your choice.

Oh no, not ignored by Captain Hyperbole. The only structure you've provided is "libertarians are dumb." How do I meaningfully participate beyond pointing out that your premise is flawed? Maybe you should substantively and meaningfully defend your hyperbole.

 

[JakeStarkey]

KK, the hyperbole has always been on the side of he libertarians.

Come up with a program that non-libertarians can look at and say 'maybe.'

Pointing out that programs are unconstitutional, not worth the price, don't work, enrich cronies, etc... Is not the same as saying, "You oppose this program? Why do you want people dying in the streets?"

Point a program of yours that will eliminate all that and maintain a sustainable safety net.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

KK, the hyperbole has always been on the side of he libertarians.

Come up with a program that non-libertarians can look at and say 'maybe.'

Pointing out that programs are unconstitutional, not worth the price, don't work, enrich cronies, etc... Is not the same as saying, "You oppose this program? Why do you want people dying in the streets?"

Point a program of yours that will eliminate all that and maintain a sustainable safety net.

Except the claim was hyperbole. Now you're changing the goal posts. That you don't agree with our ideas is not the same as saying our ideas are hyperbolic.

 

[dblack]

What they are advocating for is a 100% removal of all social services.

As provided by the government.

It does not mean they don't believe in helping each other out.

And so it gets strange.......

Why would anyone who wants to use the government to help others......feel the need to compell others to follow their path ?

If I needed help, I'd only want it from those who want to give it.

I'd starve before taking help from the government knowing full good and well some of that money came from people who would just as soon not provided it.

The usual progression in this argument is the road/school/police/fire dept.

I've never known libertarians who were against local government supplying those things.

So as a Libertarian you want to see an impoverished America on a par with a 3rd world nation where the less fortunate have no social welfare except what pittance comes via inadequate donations.

Thanks for being honest enough to admit that.

With hyperbole like this it's clear it's you who has no interest in a real discussion.

If you seriously wish to meaningfully participate in this structured discussion then I recommend that you provide a substantive rebuttal instead of just puerile kibitzing from the sidelines.

On the other hand if you persist with your current behavior you will be ignored.

Your choice.

Oh no, not ignored by Captain Hyperbole. The only structure you've provided is "libertarians are dumb." How do I meaningfully participate beyond pointing out that your premise is flawed? Maybe you should substantively and meaningfully defend your hyperbole.

The more subtle premise, of most of these strawmanning attempts, is that opposition to government aid is opposition to civic responsibility or altruism in general - ie that being against caretaker government is same as being against helping those in need. It's not. Libertarians are simply against implementing safety nets with coercion. Apparently, some of these posters can't imagine helping others without being forced to do so at the point of a gun.

 

[Derideo_Te]

What they are advocating for is a 100% removal of all social services.

As provided by the government.

It does not mean they don't believe in helping each other out.

And so it gets strange.......

Why would anyone who wants to use the government to help others......feel the need to compell others to follow their path ?

If I needed help, I'd only want it from those who want to give it.

I'd starve before taking help from the government knowing full good and well some of that money came from people who would just as soon not provided it.

The usual progression in this argument is the road/school/police/fire dept.

I've never known libertarians who were against local government supplying those things.

So as a Libertarian you want to see an impoverished America on a par with a 3rd world nation where the less fortunate have no social welfare except what pittance comes via inadequate donations.

Thanks for being honest enough to admit that.

With hyperbole like this it's clear it's you who has no interest in a real discussion.

If you seriously wish to meaningfully participate in this structured discussion then I recommend that you provide a substantive rebuttal instead of just puerile kibitzing from the sidelines.

On the other hand if you persist with your current behavior you will be ignored.

Your choice.

Oh no, not ignored by Captain Hyperbole. The only structure you've provided is "libertarians are dumb." How do I meaningfully participate beyond pointing out that your premise is flawed? Maybe you should substantively and meaningfully defend your hyperbole.

Your facile responses are becoming tedious.

Links were made to the official Libertarian party website and their stated positions on ending all forms of welfare were quoted.

Ending all government social welfare programs will substantially increase poverty. That is evidenced by nations that do and don't have social welfare programs.

Unless you can provide substantive credible evidence proving that the Libertarians have a sound and feasible alternative you are just wasting the time of everyone in this thread.

So far you have offered nothing but puerile taunting. If you cannot provide anything else then you will disqualify yourself from any further meaningful participation in this thread.

 

[Derideo_Te]

As provided by the government.

It does not mean they don't believe in helping each other out.

And so it gets strange.......

Why would anyone who wants to use the government to help others......feel the need to compell others to follow their path ?

If I needed help, I'd only want it from those who want to give it.

I'd starve before taking help from the government knowing full good and well some of that money came from people who would just as soon not provided it.

The usual progression in this argument is the road/school/police/fire dept.

I've never known libertarians who were against local government supplying those things.

So as a Libertarian you want to see an impoverished America on a par with a 3rd world nation where the less fortunate have no social welfare except what pittance comes via inadequate donations.

Thanks for being honest enough to admit that.

With hyperbole like this it's clear it's you who has no interest in a real discussion.

If you seriously wish to meaningfully participate in this structured discussion then I recommend that you provide a substantive rebuttal instead of just puerile kibitzing from the sidelines.

On the other hand if you persist with your current behavior you will be ignored.

Your choice.

Oh no, not ignored by Captain Hyperbole. The only structure you've provided is "libertarians are dumb." How do I meaningfully participate beyond pointing out that your premise is flawed? Maybe you should substantively and meaningfully defend your hyperbole.

The more subtle premise, of most of these strawmanning attempts, is that opposition to government aid is opposition to civic responsibility or altruism in general - ie that being against caretaker government is same as being against helping those in need. It's not. Libertarians are simply against implementing safety nets with coercion. Apparently, some of these posters can't imagine helping others without being forced to do so at the point of a gun.

Onus is on you to prove that so called "non coercive" alternatives actually work in reality.

 

[dblack]

So as a Libertarian you want to see an impoverished America on a par with a 3rd world nation where the less fortunate have no social welfare except what pittance comes via inadequate donations.

Thanks for being honest enough to admit that.

With hyperbole like this it's clear it's you who has no interest in a real discussion.

If you seriously wish to meaningfully participate in this structured discussion then I recommend that you provide a substantive rebuttal instead of just puerile kibitzing from the sidelines.

On the other hand if you persist with your current behavior you will be ignored.

Your choice.

Oh no, not ignored by Captain Hyperbole. The only structure you've provided is "libertarians are dumb." How do I meaningfully participate beyond pointing out that your premise is flawed? Maybe you should substantively and meaningfully defend your hyperbole.

The more subtle premise, of most of these strawmanning attempts, is that opposition to government aid is opposition to civic responsibility or altruism in general - ie that being against caretaker government is same as being against helping those in need. It's not. Libertarians are simply against implementing safety nets with coercion. Apparently, some of these posters can't imagine helping others without being forced to do so at the point of a gun.

Onus is on you to prove that so called "non coercive" alternatives actually work in reality.

Not really. "Actually work" is an entirely subjective judgment and I suspect you'd never find any non-coercive results satisfying. It's far easier to just take what you want. Wholly immoral, but easier.

 

[Derideo_Te]

With hyperbole like this it's clear it's you who has no interest in a real discussion.

If you seriously wish to meaningfully participate in this structured discussion then I recommend that you provide a substantive rebuttal instead of just puerile kibitzing from the sidelines.

On the other hand if you persist with your current behavior you will be ignored.

Your choice.

Oh no, not ignored by Captain Hyperbole. The only structure you've provided is "libertarians are dumb." How do I meaningfully participate beyond pointing out that your premise is flawed? Maybe you should substantively and meaningfully defend your hyperbole.

The more subtle premise, of most of these strawmanning attempts, is that opposition to government aid is opposition to civic responsibility or altruism in general - ie that being against caretaker government is same as being against helping those in need. It's not. Libertarians are simply against implementing safety nets with coercion. Apparently, some of these posters can't imagine helping others without being forced to do so at the point of a gun.

Onus is on you to prove that so called "non coercive" alternatives actually work in reality.

Not really. "Actually work" is an entirely subjective judgment and I suspect you'd never find any non-coercive results satisfying. It's far easier to just take what you want. Wholly immoral, but easier.

In other words you can't substantiate your Libertarian Utopia alternative welfare with anything credible.

On the other hand I can point to the all of the attempts by British citizens in the Victorian era to institute programs to relieve poverty that all ultimately failed to be anything more than a moral bandaid on the consciences on those participating. Poverty itself was largely unaffected until government social welfare programs were instituted.

What Libertarians are proposing is essentially the same failed moral bandaid dogma without any realistic expectation of a successful outcome.

 

[dblack]

Onus is on you to prove that so called "non coercive" alternatives actually work in reality.

Not really. "Actually work" is an entirely subjective judgment and I suspect you'd never find any non-coercive results satisfying. It's far easier to just take what you want. Wholly immoral, but easier.

In other words you can't substantiate your Libertarian Utopia alternative welfare with anything credible.

No. In other words, I don't recognize any 'onus' to supply an alternative to a policy I consider immoral. Government should protect us from bullies, not do their bidding.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Onus is on you to prove that so called "non coercive" alternatives actually work in reality.

Not really. "Actually work" is an entirely subjective judgment and I suspect you'd never find any non-coercive results satisfying. It's far easier to just take what you want. Wholly immoral, but easier.

In other words you can't substantiate your Libertarian Utopia alternative welfare with anything credible.

No. In other words, I don't recognize any 'onus' to supply an alternative to a policy I consider immoral. Government should protect us from bullies, not do their bidding.

The LP put it on their website but Libertarians run away and hide because they cannot support the feckless dogma of their own party.

Little wonder the LP requires hundreds of millions of dollars from the Koch bros just to get mentioned on the GOP platform.

They most certainly are failing miserably to elect any Libertarian candidates on the dubious "merits" of Libertarianism. Would that be because they too cannot defend what they allegedly stand for when asked about it by the American people themselves?

 

[dblack]

Onus is on you to prove that so called "non coercive" alternatives actually work in reality.

Not really. "Actually work" is an entirely subjective judgment and I suspect you'd never find any non-coercive results satisfying. It's far easier to just take what you want. Wholly immoral, but easier.

In other words you can't substantiate your Libertarian Utopia alternative welfare with anything credible.

No. In other words, I don't recognize any 'onus' to supply an alternative to a policy I consider immoral. Government should protect us from bullies, not do their bidding.

The LP put it on their website but Libertarians run away and hide because they cannot support the feckless dogma of their own party.

Little wonder the LP requires hundreds of millions of dollars from the Koch bros just to get mentioned on the GOP platform.

They most certainly are failing miserably to elect any Libertarian candidates on the dubious "merits" of Libertarianism. Would that be because they too cannot defend what they allegedly stand for when asked about it by the American people themselves?

No. In other words, I don't recognize any 'onus' to supply an alternative to a policy I consider immoral. Government should protect us from bullies, not do their bidding.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Onus is on you to prove that so called "non coercive" alternatives actually work in reality.

Not really. "Actually work" is an entirely subjective judgment and I suspect you'd never find any non-coercive results satisfying. It's far easier to just take what you want. Wholly immoral, but easier.

In other words you can't substantiate your Libertarian Utopia alternative welfare with anything credible.

No. In other words, I don't recognize any 'onus' to supply an alternative to a policy I consider immoral. Government should protect us from bullies, not do their bidding.

The LP put it on their website but Libertarians run away and hide because they cannot support the feckless dogma of their own party.

Little wonder the LP requires hundreds of millions of dollars from the Koch bros just to get mentioned on the GOP platform.

They most certainly are failing miserably to elect any Libertarian candidates on the dubious "merits" of Libertarianism. Would that be because they too cannot defend what they allegedly stand for when asked about it by the American people themselves?

No. In other words, I don't recognize any 'onus' to supply an alternative to a policy I consider immoral. Government should protect us from bullies, not do their bidding.

But allowing people to fall/be born into poverty and a life of crime through no fault of their own is "moral" in your opinion?

 

[dblack]

Not really. "Actually work" is an entirely subjective judgment and I suspect you'd never find any non-coercive results satisfying. It's far easier to just take what you want. Wholly immoral, but easier.

In other words you can't substantiate your Libertarian Utopia alternative welfare with anything credible.

No. In other words, I don't recognize any 'onus' to supply an alternative to a policy I consider immoral. Government should protect us from bullies, not do their bidding.

The LP put it on their website but Libertarians run away and hide because they cannot support the feckless dogma of their own party.

Little wonder the LP requires hundreds of millions of dollars from the Koch bros just to get mentioned on the GOP platform.

They most certainly are failing miserably to elect any Libertarian candidates on the dubious "merits" of Libertarianism. Would that be because they too cannot defend what they allegedly stand for when asked about it by the American people themselves?

No. In other words, I don't recognize any 'onus' to supply an alternative to a policy I consider immoral. Government should protect us from bullies, not do their bidding.

But allowing people to fall/be born into poverty and a life of crime through no fault of their own is "moral" in your opinion?

Allowing?? What is that supposed to mean? Answer the question in my sig and we'll talk. The whole idea that we "allow" someone else to do something assumes we have unlimited authority over their actions. If we took the view that government owns people, then it might make sense to say we "allow" someone to live in poverty. But that's exactly view I'm rejecting.

 

[RKMBrown]

It was never the intent of social programs or public assistance to 'end' poverty, hunger, or homelessness.

The purpose of social programs is to act as a counter-measure to the free market system and the inevitable, static poverty that is its byproduct.

This is not to say capitalism is 'bad,' quite the opposite – it's the most efficient economic system ever developed, but it's imperfect, and the byproduct of poverty is a manifestation of its imperfection, where it's perfectly appropriate for government, representing society as whole, to seek to mitigate the adverse effects of the free market.

There is no such thing as "perfection." The adverse effect of the free market is the criminals to try to tear it down out of jealousy, pride, hate, and laziness; and the dumb asses that try to appease them.

 

[RKMBrown]

In other words you can't substantiate your Libertarian Utopia alternative welfare with anything credible.

No. In other words, I don't recognize any 'onus' to supply an alternative to a policy I consider immoral. Government should protect us from bullies, not do their bidding.

The LP put it on their website but Libertarians run away and hide because they cannot support the feckless dogma of their own party.

Little wonder the LP requires hundreds of millions of dollars from the Koch bros just to get mentioned on the GOP platform.

They most certainly are failing miserably to elect any Libertarian candidates on the dubious "merits" of Libertarianism. Would that be because they too cannot defend what they allegedly stand for when asked about it by the American people themselves?

No. In other words, I don't recognize any 'onus' to supply an alternative to a policy I consider immoral. Government should protect us from bullies, not do their bidding.

But allowing people to fall/be born into poverty and a life of crime through no fault of their own is "moral" in your opinion?

Allowing?? What that supposed to mean? Answer the question in my sig and we'll talk. The whole idea that we "allow" someone else to do something assumes we have unlimited authority over their actions. If we took the view that government owns people, then it might make sense to say we "allow" someone to live in poverty. But that's exactly view I'm rejecting.

He means that if we don't steal money from peter to hand it over to poor little paul, then we are allowing paul to wallow in misery as he sits around doing absolutely nothing with his life that is of value to anyone, including himself.